I’m not calling the paradox (or the constitution) silly, I’m saying they don’t apply in this scenario.
From the snippet above:
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most imwise
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
In other words, yeah, if that instance starts getting people to be assholes to everyone etc, sure, tolerance does not mean we should let them do so here, that’s the point of the paradox. But, as the author states, suppressing them without cause etc would be most foolish. Far better to try and discuss with rational argument first before resorting to “well, we don’t want to talk to you because my MAGA uncle is a dick.”
Is that the only thing you can rebut out of all of that?
It is the only relevant part.
Are these the kind of meaningful debates you have with MAGA?
Yeah, I get similarly silly stuff from the right, where they have readnheard of something but don’t quite understand how it applies, eg:
“I guess you haven’t read the Constitution!”
“Free speech is about government, not public outcry.”
Such is life.
What’s silly about the paradox of intolerance? Why does it not apply to defederating here? I don’t grasp it’s purported lack of relevance.
You are misunderstanding.
I’m not calling the paradox (or the constitution) silly, I’m saying they don’t apply in this scenario.
From the snippet above:
In other words, yeah, if that instance starts getting people to be assholes to everyone etc, sure, tolerance does not mean we should let them do so here, that’s the point of the paradox. But, as the author states, suppressing them without cause etc would be most foolish. Far better to try and discuss with rational argument first before resorting to “well, we don’t want to talk to you because my MAGA uncle is a dick.”
I disagree with you on this and various other points you’ve made here, but I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate your viewpoint.
Thanks!